Featured Articles

“Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies” Part II

Earlier this year, in a column entitled Naming Neocons, I mentioned that The American Conservative publisher Taki Theodoracopulos had been replaced by Jewish businessman Ron Unz and wondered if that might change how the topic of Jews was discussed (or not discussed). After all, while Taki was publisher, featured writer Pat Buchanan had pointed to the heavily Jewish makeup of the neocons.

For instance, in his sizzling cover story Whose War?, he had written that the pre-planned attack on Iraq following 9/11 was instigated by a “neoconservative clique.” “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars.”

Well, that essay was five years ago, and The American Conservative has mostly moved on to other topics. A recent article, however, prompted me to think about two things related to the above. First, having just last week written about how Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies and seek to undermine those societies in a variety of ways, including revolutionary action, I couldn’t help but notice that Neil Clark’s June 16 essay in The American Conservative fell into the same category. Second, though the article was about European revolutionary Daniel “Red Dany” Cohn-Bendit, it failed to identify him as Jewish. 

Clark’s essay, “Children of ’68: de Gaulle restored order but the radicals won,” is an almost perfect description of the kind of society smashing Jew I had written about last week. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, born in France to German-Jewish parents who had fled Nazism in 1933, “was the antithesis of everything de Gaulle stood for. De Gaulle, the archetypal proud Frenchman, had been born into a deeply patriotic family. . . . De Gaulle loved France; Cohn-Bendit hated almost everything about it in 1968.”

Change the names of radicals and countries and you have something akin to what I wrote about last week. I showcased how prolific blogger Steve Sailer wrote about the actions of one Franca Eckert Coen, “an Italian Jew in an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic city who lives in an apartment filled with Jewish art [who] was in charge of multicultural policy under the former mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni.”

Recall also that I quoted Sailer as saying about Coen’s efforts to deconstruct the unity of an ethnic Italian state: “Do you ever get the impression that Kevin MacDonald has secretly bought a controlling interest in the New York Times and is rewriting its articles to make them prove his theories correct?”

Now I have to wonder if MacDonald hasn’t invested heavily in The American Conservative as well.

Again, though Clark does not mention Cohn-Bendit’s real ethnicity in the article, it is obvious to anyone with the courage to read between the lines. Cohn-Bendit, then, is a character directly out of the pages of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, MacDonald’s culminating volume in his trilogy on Jews.

For instance, Cohn-Bendit’s attempts to alter the sexual mores of society leapt out at me, for MacDonald had written at length on how Freud and his successors in the psychoanalytic movement, including Norman O. Brown, Wilhelm Reich, and Herbert Marcuse, had used attacks on gentile sexual restraint to undermine those societies. “The common thread of these writings is that if society could somehow rid itself of sexual repressions, human relations could be based on love and affection. This is an extremely naive and socially destructive viewpoint, given the current research in the field. Psychoanalytic assertions to the contrary were never any more than speculations in the service of waging a war on gentile culture.”

Now read what Clark writes about Cohn-Bendit’s activities after returning from France to Germany:

Meanwhile, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the man who had done so much to stir up discontent, moved on to new pastures. Back in Germany, he became involved in radical Green politics and ran a kindergarten in Frankfurt. His stated aim: to “radically transform” German mentalities. As in 1968, it started with sex. (Clark also notes that in his 1976 book, Cohn-Bendit “wrote of children opening his trouser zipper and tickling him and how he ‘caressed’ the children,” an admission which elicited accusations of pedophilia.)

Ah, Cohn-Bendit is ever the sexual transgressor. Back in 1960s’ France, he was a leader “in claims for more sexual freedom, with actions such as participating in the occupation of the girls’ premises, interrupting the speech of a minister who was inaugurating a swimming pool in order to demand free access to the girls’ dormitory. This contributed to attracting to him a lot of student supporters later to be called the March 22nd Movement, a group characterized by a mixture of Marxist, sexual and anarchist semantics.”

Further, Clark points to Cohn-Bendit’s recent efforts in the European Parliament to legalize drugs, which also echoes MacDonald’s claim that Jews have attempted to undo adaptive restrictions on behavior similar to those that European populations have imposed for centuries.

It is the reference to Cohn-Bendit’s efforts at freer immigration into Europe, however, that really catches my attention, for that is practically the current sine qua non of Jewish activism toward breaking up what many Jews view as nationalistic, particularistic societies. According to Wikipedia, in 1989 Cohn-Bendit became deputy mayor of Frankfurt, “in charge of multicultural affairs. Immigrants made up some 30% of the city at that time.” (Clark notes that “Red Dany’s enthusiasm for overriding national sovereignty is something he shares with his fellow soixante-huitard Bernard Kouchner, the current French foreign minister,” but Clark here also fails to identify Kouchner as half Jewish.)

Now reference this back to the female Coen I wrote about above: she was “in charge of multicultural policy under the former mayor of Rome.”

This is what Sailer quoted from a New York Times article about her activism to de-Italianize Italy:

The newspapers said the Chinese were against Christianity,” she said. “So we held a public event on the Campidoglio about Chinese culture and the New Year celebration, and now we have a Chinese parade each year.

“It was the same with the Sikhs,” she added. “We had a public event after 2001. We also organized tours of the Capitoline Museums for immigrants. Then we asked them to do something. The Poles, for example, had someone play Polish music at the museum.”

“Little things,” she called them. “They can overcome big fears. I saw all these immigrants become a little bit Italian citizens. Culture is crucial to give people here a chance to see that to be foreign is to bring a different ethnic life to the city, that diversity is a positive.”

This, of course, is MacDonald thesis in The Culture of Critique all over again. Chapter seven, for instance, “Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy,” mirrors such Jewish efforts to make America a less Christian, European-derived nation. (These are also useful links to MacDonald’s arguments on Jews and immigration: “Jewish involvement in influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical review. HTML Version Population and Environment, 19, 295-355, 1998. “Immigration and the Unmentionable Question of Ethnic Interests.” VDARE (www.vdare.com), October 27, 2004. And “Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off ‘Racist’?VDARE (www.vdare.com), June 19, 2004.)

Of course, MacDonald is also fully conscious of Jewish efforts in other countries to dilute the “nationalistic, particularistic “ aspects of those societies as well. In a five-page appendix to his chapter on immigration, he writes that “Jewish organizations have pursued similar policies regarding immigration in other Western societies.” In addition to France and Germany, he also documents Jewish activism in the Anglosphere countries of England, Australia and Canada, despite the fact that in the latter two countries there was never “any popular sentiment to end the older European bias of immigration policy.”

MacDonald finishes by writing, “It seems fair to conclude that Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies.”

Getting back to Clark’s essay in The American Conservative , we find that he closes on a depressing note:

Cohn-Bendit’s militant ideology has infected not only the Left, but the Right, too. John McCain’s advocacy of a more liberal immigration policy and his championing of a League of Democracies, with the right to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states the world over, owes more to Daniel Cohn-Bendit than it does to Russell Kirk.

Forty years ago, Red Dany lost a battle. But the sad truth is, he won the war.

See also Part I of this article.

Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Eye on the Media – Before They Can Walk: Displacement of White Images in Baby Books and Toys

One good way to shove whites off the stage of the society they built is by displacing their image.  It’s noticeable everywhere:  advertising, television, magazines, billboards, movies and other media.  As a new parent, I’ve come to notice how this is happening even in a child’s world.  At the local Barnes & Noble the other day, I noticed a book, “I Am a Black Child,” which unapologetically told black children that it’s wonderful to be black, your ancestors are kings and queens, and so on.  Imagine “I Am a White Child.”

At a 2-year-old’s birthday party recently, one present was a toy fire truck featuring a sole firefighter figure:  a black male.  This is especially tweaking in light of the fact that firefighters even today are a predominately white group, so much so that lawsuits have been filed claiming that black would-be firefighters are discriminated against.

But the message is clear for the child:   the normal course is for blacks to be firefighters.  Like “Dora the Explorer,” the Hispanic child adventure character, it is pure propaganda, meant to affirm other groups and exclude whites.

Another bizarre gift was a book featuring animals on the cover and a single example of “baby”:  again, a black figure.  Message:  Babies are black.  Black is normal.  Accept black.  Accept it before you can even walk.

For whites in America, raising children is hard enough, but made harder still by the exclusion and denigration of the books, toys and other products that fill the shelves of the baby store.  Maybe it’s time for explicitly white-themed books and toys for white children.  How could non-white groups possibly complain, with books like “I Am a Black Child” around?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Eye on the Media – Lines Overlooked by the Times

This Sunday’s Week in Review section fronts with a non-groundbreaking quote corral on the Times’ favorite issue of late: Will whites vote for Barack Obama?

Not if he’s too much of a black power fist-pumper, concludes black journalist Marcus Mabry, in what I would describe as a “revelation” fit to print only by the sliding standards of affirmative action. (Really? We couldn’t figure this out?)

Mabry, whose own background suggests he’s a sort of journalistic Obama himself, lazily phones around to the short list of race talkers: John McWhorter and Orlando Patterson (black conservative, black liberal, roughly), Jesse Jackson, Jr., academic Alan Wolfe and author Rick Perlstein. Also on the list is Pat Buchanan, who’s allowed to mention that if blacks are going to support Obama by 90 percent, it’s a little silly to cry racism when whites exhibit a pattern of voting for whites. My neighbors should be grateful that Buchanan, and not David Frum or Bill Kristol, was chosen to speak for the white point of view.

Here is Buchanan, by the way, schooling Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen on this very issue. Do take a moment to watch Cohen squirm.

While not boring us with insights any third-rate blogger could have given us months ago, Mabry wrongly suggests it’s a “prejudice” for whites to think blacks are less patriotic (a little hard not to think, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright damning America and Michelle Obama saying that only now that her husband is successful is she proud of America). Mabry also thinks its prejudicial to link blacks to crime (readers not familiar with the positions of white advocacy should consult Jared Taylor’s “The Color of Crime” report to see that this is not, in fact, counter-factual).

He concludes with that media favorite: Economics, not race, tells the real story.

Mabry’s central point—that whites won’t vote for a too-black candidate—isn’t necessarily wrong. But he stops short about why: Even in this age of near-maximum saturation of political correctness and egalitarian dogma, many whites simply balk at embracing blacks. To white advocates, of course, this is perfectly natural and easily explained: Blacks are a different race with markedly different behavior patterns, intelligence levels and value systems.

The premise that members of different races are fungible is completely mistaken. Only in the deepest reaches of their subconscious do whites still get this. And to my mind, their enthusiasm for Obama is only more evidence of this: It’s the exaggerated gesticulation of a white person forcing themselves to be, or appear, “non-racist.” TOO contributor Hereward Lindsay observes this superficial overfriendliness when a white person will grunt or merely nod to another white, but all of a sudden becomes animated and solicitous when speaking to a black.

In other words, the Obama ascension isn’t a sign to me that races have changed, or even that the human capacity for dealing with racial difference has changed: we have simply moved the furniture around.

There’s another point that the Times and much of the blogosphere has missed in the swoon over this “historic moment”. Obama is a politician. He is not the first black politician. Blacks, in fact, are pretty well suited to politics: they are often gregarious, good speakers, able to command loyalty and work the room. They are typically elected where blacks are concentrated. And indeed, Marion Barry, Wilson Goode, David Dinkins, Cory Booker, Ray Nagin and many others fill a volume like this.

This is not, I repeat, not, a sign that blacks have achieved more than they would have absent intelligence and behavior levels on parity with that of whites. It’s a sign that blacks are loyal to blacks, and have figured out (mostly) how to pull the lever at the local voting precinct (though apparently, requiring them to produce ID is “racist”). Clearly, Marion Barry’s “stewardship” of Washington, D.C. did nothing to improve crime rates or education problems in that heavily-black city — and he personally actually made them worse.

Asians are good counter-example: they are quieter and far less adept at politics, as their anemic numbers in those ranks demonstrate. But they fare better because they’re entrepreneurial, hard-working and math-smart.

So Obama’s securing the Democratic nomination is not, in fact, a sign that blacks have “progressed” to actual equality with whites, only that our media and minders have hustled a black man to the front of the line for their own purposes. President Obama will not erase inherent racial differences. He will not make it so that whites in Cambridge will invite black gang members into their midst. He will not make it so that blacks outscore whites on the LSAT. He will not make the Bronx a friendlier environment for whites (and might even make it more dangerous, with that extra boost of confidence for the swaggering black male).

[adrotate group=”1″]

In fact, as others have noted, it might actually do some damage to the black cause, in so far as affirmative action starts to look still more ridiculous with a black man sitting in the White House (though I am confident that the anti-white network will manage this situation effectively, patiently explaining to credulous whites why they must accept this contradiction). One hopes for some white consciousness-raising, but every time I think to myself that some catastrophic event will “wake whites up,” it never does. Whites, despite their revealed internal instincts, are determined to consciously believe that “race is just a skin color,” and many will use the image of President Obama to sustain that illusion.

Our task as white advocates is to show that the reality on the ground is a far cry from black Camelot.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Rachel Abramowitz on Mel Gibson: Are the Goyim making an empire of their own in Hollywood?

Rachel Abramowitz, an entertainment commentator for the LA Times, is of two minds regarding Mel Gibson. On the one hand, Gibson seems like a really nice guy. He helps other Hollywood types get over their addictions—most recently Britney Spears, but also Robert Downey Jr. and Courtney Love. And he very generous to charities, giving out huge sums to UCLA, Cedars Sinai Medical Center and Healing the Children without seeking any publicity for it. And even in Abramowitz’s experience, he has been “always friendly and unpretentious, a macho goofball.”

But then there’s that other side.  

Until “The Passion of the Christ,” few in showbiz had a problem with Mel, the person. He wasn’t a nightmare on two legs, and he worked happily and closely with gays and Jews. It’s just when he vocalized what was putatively in his heart — when he went ideological — that his public perception problems began. …

I saw him in 2004 during the media meltdown of “The Passion of the Christ.” Huddled in a swank hotel room, Gibson had aged considerably and appeared harried and even paranoid, which is a strange quality for a gazillionaire mega-star. “I’ve been subjected to religious persecution, persecution as an artist, persecution as an American, persecution as a man,” he told me, which was a little hard to take, given that he didn’t have a concentration camp number on his wrist or hadn’t just spent five years in a labor camp in Siberia.

Still, he was remarkably warm and seemed genuinely surprised when I told him how much “The Passion of the Christ” upset me. As a Jew, it made me feel like I had a target on my back. “I’m sorry if it’s caused you to feel that way, because you’re a friend of mine and I love you,” he said sincerely. “It completely tears my heart out when I see you like that.”

So Abramowitz finds Gibson a “nightmare on two legs” because he made a movie of his version of the crucifixion — a version that is fits squarely with the Gospel account and mainstream historical Christianity. The persecution Gibson endured for this “crime” can’t even be termed ‘persecution’; since that word is reserved for victims of real suffering such as the Holocaust survivors. And it doesn’t help to say that you are sorry that you caused such pain. What matters is that you offended Jewish sensibilities.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Even for strongly identified Jews, to say that The Passion of Christ made her feel like she had a target on her back is a bit over the top. But we are so used to reading such individuals in the mainstream media that we hardly notice it when Abramowitz makes such a comment. And lest we forget, Charles Krauthammer termed The Passion of Christ a “blood libel” against Jews. And Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic wrote: “In its representation of its Jewish characters, The Passion of the Christ is without any doubt an anti-Semitic movie, and anybody who says otherwise knows nothing, or chooses to know nothing, about the visual history of anti-Semitism, in art and in film. What is so shocking about Gibson’s Jews is how unreconstructed they are in their stereotypical appearances and actions. These are not merely anti-Semitic images; these are classically anti-Semitic images.”

Abramowitz recounts the campaign to shun Gibson because of Passion as well as his comments on Jews after being arrested for DUI. Leading the campaign isAri Emanuel, described as a Hollywood “super agent” who called for“professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with him, even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line.”

Emanuel appears to have made good on his threat: According to Abramowitz, Gibson’s agent was forced to go with another talent agency.

Incidentally, Emanuel has many relatives in Israel, and his brother, CongressmanRahm Emanuel is a citizen of Israel and a Jewish patriot as well as a major force in the Democratic Party. His father was a member of Irgun, the Zionist terrorist group closely associated with the ethnonationalist Jabotinsky wing of Zionism, while his mother was a civil rights activist in the US.

Emanuel’s background thus epitomizes a very common Jewish stance: Deeply committed to an ethnonationalist vision of Israel and actively opposed to it anywhere else, especially on the part of whites.

The interesting thing is that despite the lingering hostility toward him, Gibson will soon be starring in his first film since 2002. (Passion, which he directed, came out in 2004, and his comments about Jews during his DUI arrest occurred in 2006.) The film is The Edge of Darkness, to be directed by Martin Campbell who most recently directed the James Bond film Casino Royale. The screenwriter is William Monahan who won an Oscar for writing The Departed, a film on Irish mobsters in Boston. And the movie is being bankrolled by independent financier Graham King.

What do these three have in common? Well, for one thing, they aren’t Jewish —and that may be the most important thing they have in common given the hostility toward Gibson that still simmers in Hollywood. Could it be that non-Jews are finally carving out an empire of their own in Tinsel Town? Certainly hiring Gibson is not the sort of thing that ingratiates one to the Hollywood power elite. But these guys don’t seem to be intimidated. Perhaps Gibson is assuming the persona of his Braveheart performance as William Wallace and his example is rubbing off on others. An omen of things to come?

“Hate” laws

Jeremy Waldron, in the latest NYRB, has reviewed what looks to be a valuable book by Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the thought that we hate: A biography of the First Amendment. However, Waldron ends his review with a rather insidious plea concerning the legal restriction of public pronouncements about other races and ethnies. Here’s what he says (p. 44) [emphasis added]:

Lewis’s settled position, I think, is that we do better to swallow hard and tolerate ‘the thought that we hate’ than open ourselves to the dangers of state regulation. I am not convinced. The case is certainly not clear on either side, and Lewis acknowledges that. But it is worth remembering a couple of final points.

First, the issue is not thought that we hate, as though defenders of hate speech laws want to get inside people’s minds. The issue is publication and the harm done to individuals and groups through the disfiguring of our social environment by visible, public, and semi-permanent announcements to the effect that in the opinion of one group in the community, perhaps the majority, members of another group are not worthy of equal citizenship. The old idea of group libel — as opposed to hateful thoughts or hateful conversation — makes this clear, and it is no accident that a number of European countries still use that term.

Well, the term “libel” is a good one. But when applied to the libeling of a private individual, whose reputation has supposedly been unjustly tarnished, the libeler has to have made a false statement. If the statement turns out to be true, it is not libel. “Reputation” is a critical feature of social relations. It can take a long time to establish a good one and an instant to lose it. But when an accusation is valid, the person’s reputation deserves to be affected. The same holds for “group libel” when one calls attention to group differences (e.g., blacks have lower IQ) or mentions the activity of ethnic organizations (e.g., the role of the organized Jewish community in ending immigration policies that favored the European majority in the U.S.).

A court punishes a libeler via due process in which both the falsity and the harmful nature of the statement must be demonstrated to the court’s satisfaction. But truth is a perfectly adequate defense. If the truth is harmful or distasteful to a group, that’s just too bad, just as is the case for an individual. Of course, when people are interacting in good faith, there is no reason for not conveying the truth diplomatically and politely.

One must also consider the fact that to be consistent with principle, any law must apply equally to all parties. Therefore harsh criticisms of ‘whites’, ‘white society’, and ‘Western civilization’ would also have to be examined as potential cases of ‘hate speech’. In that case, would the words of Rev. Wright constitute an offense? Or those of the late literary darling of NY intellectuals, Susan Sontag, who retracted her remark that the white race is the cancer of human history by saying that it slandered cancer patients? To do otherwise would be to violate neutrality, one of the fundamental principles of, dare one say it, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ jurisprudence?

Waldron continues:

Secondly, the issue is not just our learning to tolerate thought that we hate — we the First Amendment lawyers, for example. The harm that expressions of racial hatred do is harm in the first instance to the groups who are denounced or bestialized in pamphlets, billboards, talk radio, and blogs. It is not harm — if I can put it bluntly — to the white liberals who find the racist invective distasteful. Maybe we should admire some lawyer who says he hates what the racist says but defends to the death his right to say it, but this sort of intellectual resilience is not what’s at issue. The question is about the direct targets of the abuse. Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials? Those are the concerns that need to be answered when we defend the use of the First Amendment to strike down laws prohibiting the publication of racial hatred.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Of course people may be offended, deeply hurt even, when members of other branches of humanity look down on them because of behaviors which are indeed widespread within the targeted group. But traditional Mormons (LDS) and Muslims really do sanction polygamy and many of these polygamous families are indeed on welfare. And the organized Jewish community is indeed the main force influencing U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. We should be able to say these things even if those discussed are offended by such remarks.

This is something that Waldron and other racial apologists cannot accept and why his special pleading is insidious. Of course, Muslims who oppose polygamy and Jews who oppose the Israel lobby don’t deserve to be included as guilty of these actions. But they either have a moral imperative to control the perpetrators in their midst or, if that is not possible — as it usually is not — to dissociate themselves from them and their anti-social acts (as many members of many groups have).

Human cognitive systems are evolutionarily preprogrammed to attend to cues for danger and to avoid things that are disliked. Such stereotyping, when applied to other human groups, may not appeal to many people’s moral sense, but it is a form of generalization which is an invaluable and constant cognitive process for all humans — even when the stereotype does not apply to all members of the group.

Stereotypes are rules of thumb. When we are in an in-group, we tend to exaggerate the extent to which members of out-groups have negative traits. These perceptions are useful for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that they make us cautious in dealing with members of the out-group. If I know that young black men are much more likely than whites or Asians to be street criminals, I would be well advised to keep a good distance from a young black man even when a particular black is not a criminal. “Better safe than sorry” is a good mammalian rule. Like it or not, our evolutionary history has been dictated by an eye toward survival, not canonization.

And if the information that young black men are much more likelyto be street criminals is useful in everyday life, then we should be able to state it without incurring the wrath of the thought police — even if it hurts the feelings of blacks.

Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn’t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn’t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.

Of course today’s politically correct dogma has pathologized “hate”, presumably on the grounds that there is no good reason to have negative stereotypes of certain targets, especially other races and ethnies. To the extent that we can know anything in the social sciences, this is simply untrue.

Often the people complaining most about negative stereotypes are quite prone, themselves, to stereotyping when it suits their interest (e.g., blacks blaming white “racists” and “hate mongers” for their own especially high black crime rate). And it is doubtless true that people do sometimes make mistakes and falsely accuse others (e.g., certain extreme varieties of “Holocaust Denial”). But the solution to that is to educate, inform and explain.

If  a public verbal attack on a group turns out to be malicious accusation where the accuser cannot back up his accusation with facts, then the accuser  might well be held accountable for “group libel,” even if the punishment is nothing more than hostile public opinion. For example, the loss of one’s job as a broadcaster for saying blacks have superior athletic ability because of breeding practices is certainly substantial punishment — especially since the essential notion (that racial differences in talents can arise through differential breeding) is true.  To go beyond that and enlist laws and tribunals of the state to penalize such speech, as a form of “group libel”, would absolutely require following the logic of libel for individuals: prove that the defendant intended to defame a whole group and not just some individuals within it and that what the defendant said was false. This won’t be easy since most people who hold negative views of out-groups probably genuinely believe whatever they may have expressed publicly.

Thus, if “group libel” is so difficult to prove, don’t mess with the First Amendment! The best solution, if ethnic or racial groups cannot seem to resolve their hostile opinions of each other, is that they simply live separately where they can’t get on each other’s nerves. As Steve Sailer says, “It’s what separate countries are for.”

Those tempted to take the anti-hate speech arguments seriously, might want to reflect on the words of Heinrich Himmler, quoted by Lothrop Stoddard who interviewed Heinrich Himmler in Germany back in 1939 and asked “Is any political opposition allowed?”

“What a person thinks is none of our concern,” shot back Himmler quickly.  “But when he acts upon his thoughts, perhaps to the point of starting a conspiracy, then we take action.  We believe in extinguishing a fire while it is still small.  It saves trouble and averts much damage.

Sounds like Waldron’s view of the First Amendment.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to the editor and Travis Woodson for their suggestions on the article.

Anthony Hilton is Associate Professor of Psychology (Ret.) at Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Cooter Obama, George Obama: The Onion (Inadvertently?) Beats Real Life to the Punch

The satirical newspaper The Onion, once a college campus mainstay out of Madison, Wisconsin that in recent years has moved its headquarters to New York for a more national reach, has a habit of creating spoofs that are one step ahead of reality.

Last week, it ran a pretty funny piece on “Cooter Obama,” Obama’s embarrassing half-brother.

Cooter Obama welcomes his brother’s supporters with a jug of “white lightning” before whipping up a steaming vat of flat-possum stew.

Now, it’s being reported by the UK’s Telegraph that the Italian Vanity Fair has found a real — and probably embarrassing — half-brother.  George Obama lives in a hut in Kenya, doesn’t seem to have an identifiable job, lives on a dollar a month, and describes himself as “good with his fists.”

Did Onion writers know something the rest of us didn’t?  Probably not.  Modern life can be so predictably ridiculous that satire is probably a more accurate forecaster than serious pundit divinations (think of the Mike Judge movie, Idiocracy).

Although in this case, the real half-brother might have taken the Onion by surprise, because the supposed comedy premise of “Cooter Obama” is that such a figure would be restricted to whites.  Political correctness restrains us from imagining an embarrassing black or African half-brother.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The Onion was once more daring on racial issues, but its rise to prominence has tempered that.  For instance, the fake columnist “Amber Richardson,” known for such declarations as “My baby don’t want no medicine,” was originally black.  Now, “Amber Richardson” is depicted as a white woman with a bandana on her head.  (Caution: Rough language.)

It’s not as funny.

The Onion’s still pretty funny (personal favorite headline:  “New Crispy Snack Cracker to Ease Crushing Pain of Modern Life“), but one wonders if it would be funnier still if it were more willing to poke all of America’s sacred cows.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

The White Elephants of Frank Rich

Only for today’s mainstream media is something illegitimate by virtue of being all-white.  Needless to say, something that’s all-black or all-Hispanic is vivid, authentic and inspiring;  anything all-white is stultifying, boring and evil.

The New York Times’ Frank Rich, a Jewish liberal, complains Sunday that of the Republican Party’s 247 senators and representatives in the Congress, all are white.  This, Rich says, is “the elephant in the room of our politics” and is “rarely acknowledged”.  More on that in a second.

Rich’s piece begins with a lengthy and flaccid complaint that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the black supremacist preacher and spiritual mentor to Barack Obama, gets far more attention than the anti-Catholic and fanatically Christian Zionist Rev. John Hagee, who has endorsed John McCain and whose antics are also caught on YouTube. (Hagee’s anti-Catholic animosity seems directed at the Church for what he sees as the Church’s misbehavior against the Jews.)

It’s a sorry attempt at a comparison for reasons that are 1) almost too obvious to get into (McCain doesn’t go to Hagee’s church) and 2) blogged about already by countless liberals.  It makes you wonder what justifies Frank Rich’s paycheck.

The piece winds through to Rich’s point, which is that the racial discord among Democrats revealed by the Clinton-Obama contest is better than the racial unity of Republicans.  Naturally, because that unity is white, it’s something to be ashamed of, “racial dysfunction in their own house.”

(Whiteness as inherently “dysfunctional” is a favorite and sadly unchallenged theme of the liberals, the left, Jewish activists and other anti-white operatives.  Conservatives are always on the run against this charge.  Never do they confront it by asking what’s wrong with being part of a predominately white group.)

Rich takes the standard MSM tack here, demanding to know why there aren’t blacks and Hispanics among GOP ranks, and assuming that anything not graced with their presence must be flawed.  But he’s wrong to say that Republican whiteness is “rarely acknowledged”;  in fact, Howard Dean has done just that, and it seems unlikely that many even casual observers of American politics would guess that the Republican Party is a black stronghold.  Rich seems not to get that it’s “rarely acknowledged” in the specific because it’s so relentlessly acknowledged in the general:  Our entire media is geared toward the idea that white is bad, anything else is good.

Rich concludes, “anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades.  Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.”

Frank is on the precipice of truth here, but we know he isn’t going to jump.  Yes, America is plunging toward a white minority.  Yet to Frank, this is a good thing, and whites should prepare by learning to genuflect to new minority power.  To white advocates, it does not bode well.

[adrotate group=”1″]

And yes, there isn’t any candid conversation on race.  But what Rich means by “candid” is whites rending their garments over their collective guilt and shame and speaking frankly about what goodies should be doled out to other racial groups.  What white advocates mean by “candid” is an acknowledgement of inherent racial differences, the unworkability of racial integration, and the legitimacy of white unity and political power.

Ultimately, the real elephant in the room isn’t the evil of white dominance.  It’s the reality of racial differences.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.